So What's Coming to the New Pleasure Island?

My question would be, how many people actually paid the cover charge? Between CM's, PI Annual passes, and Premium AP's, I would be interested to know how much money actually flowed to the Adventurers Club financial statement. Also, how did they account for a 6 club admission? Split 6 ways? Assign the revenue to the Club where the ticket was activated? And as for CM's, does the Club get a credit that then gets charged to some type of employee benefit pool?

I personally think that creative accounting could have either saved the club or did it in.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but can't you say the same thing about say Animal Kingdom. People rarely purchase one day tickets, I assume. Most people attending are on APs, PAPs, or PH for however long they are in the area.

They certainly have had counters at every entrance to the AC and CW. Is it even necessary to split it from an accounting point of view. It seems that they treated PI as one operating entity.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

My question would be, how many people actually paid the cover charge? Between CM's, PI Annual passes, and Premium AP's, I would be interested to know how much money actually flowed to the Adventurers Club financial statement. Also, how did they account for a 6 club admission? Split 6 ways? Assign the revenue to the Club where the ticket was activated? And as for CM's, does the Club get a credit that then gets charged to some type of employee benefit pool?

I personally think that creative accounting could have either saved the club or did it in.

Click to expand...

The cover charge was only a small portion of potential profits for PI. The real area for profits was the prices they charged for drinks and other items. Almost any other club would love to have the profit margins that the clubs in PI had. In addition they certainly wouldn't be closing to look for a way to make more profit while driving away existing customers.

The cover charge was only a small portion of potential profits for PI. The real area for profits was the prices they charged for drinks and other items. Almost any other club would love to have the profit margins that the clubs in PI had. In addition they certainly wouldn't be closing to look for a way to make more profit while driving away existing customers.

Click to expand...

Not just any other club, any other BUSINESS would love to hae the profit margins that the AC had. Sadly, someone with a spreadsheet somewhere in Califorina thought that they could do better as landlords of crappy merchandise stores and mediocre food offerings. They got greedy, pure and simple.

I think it's been established that Disney wanted to divest itself of all of its nightclub business at PI. Their intent is to turn it into another Anaheim DTD - third-party businesses with the exception of the Disney merchandise stores, street entertainment provided by independent contractors (not Disney employees), selling mass-produced food and merchandise geared toward tourists, not locals. Unless I am mistaken, while the Disneyland parks attract locals, the Downtown Disney area in Anaheim does not. (I actually spoke to someone a couple of weeks ago who made this comparison - they were ecstatic about WDW moving toward a Disneyland type of downtown area, as Disneyland's didn't attract the same "undesirable element" as WDW's did. This person blamed the PI nightclubs for that "element." I think it's more the fact that WDW does not charge for parking at DTD, while Disneyland does.)

I tend to consider the "family-friendly" bit to be a smokescreen as they are still selling alcoholic beverages in bars on the street, and one of the new additions will be a Latin combo restaurant and dance club (run by someone other than Disney of course.)

I'd speculate that for those of you who are pleased to see the nightclubs go, you're going to see more nightclubs. The difference will be that a third party will run them. (Some already consider Raglan Road a nightclub - it's open late and features live music and copious alcohol)

I think it's been established that Disney wanted to divest itself of all of its nightclub business at PI. Their intent is to turn it into another Anaheim DTD - third-party businesses with the exception of the Disney merchandise stores, street entertainment provided by independent contractors (not Disney employees), selling mass-produced food and merchandise geared toward tourists, not locals. Unless I am mistaken, while the Disneyland parks attract locals, the Downtown Disney area in Anaheim does not. (I actually spoke to someone a couple of weeks ago who made this comparison - they were ecstatic about WDW moving toward a Disneyland type of downtown area, as Disneyland's didn't attract the same "undesirable element" as WDW's did. This person blamed the PI nightclubs for that "element." I think it's more the fact that WDW does not charge for parking at DTD, while Disneyland does.)

I tend to consider the "family-friendly" bit to be a smokescreen as they are still selling alcoholic beverages in bars on the street, and one of the new additions will be a Latin combo restaurant and dance club (run by someone other than Disney of course.)

I'd speculate that for those of you who are pleased to see the nightclubs go, you're going to see more nightclubs. The difference will be that a third party will run them. (Some already consider Raglan Road a nightclub - it's open late and features live music and copious alcohol)

Click to expand...

The thing about Anaheim's Downtown Disney is that, since it's ajacent to the parks, hotels, and parking garage, it doesn't have to be a destination in and of itself. You pretty much have to walk past it or through it whenever you're going to Disneyland. So that model works well for that resort.

At WDW, however, it needs to be a draw. A reason to get on a bus, or into a car and travel to the edge of Disney property. For many people, local and tourist alike, that draw was Pleasure Island.

They're making Florida decisions based on the California business model. That's stupid. They're two distinct markets and demographic models. Making the same decisions for both, isn't smart business.

I could see phasing out some of the dance clubs. Rock 'n' Roll Beach Club and Motion clearly weren't carrying their weight. But why close all of P.I. when they can't even get anyone to lease RNRBC? It makes no sense.

And again, I would have to point out the existence of the AMC and Virgin Mega stores. This has nothing to do with being "family friendly", whatever that means. It has to do with the bottom line and making more guaranteed money by leasing space.

And again, I would have to point out the existence of the AMC and Virgin Mega stores. This has nothing to do with being "family friendly", whatever that means. It has to do with the bottom line and making more guaranteed money by leasing space.

Click to expand...

That "guaranteed money" only comes along if you can actually get someone to lease the space. Word is that they haven't had ANYONE interested in Rock 'n' Roll Beach Club since it closed in March, and rumor has it that they've dropped their price a couple of times already.

Likewise, they don't currently have any takers on ANY of the clubs.

So it seems that the "guaranteed money" would have been to continue operating night clubs that were actually pulling in revenue, rather than having to maintain empty buildings that no one wants to lease.

I am saying the the sole reason for the change is that someone came up with a spreadsheet that showed better numbers for leasing the land vs. operating PI as is or reinvesting in it. We all know that Disney never makes mistakes in their estimations.

I am saying the the sole reason for the change is that someone came up with a spreadsheet that showed better numbers for leasing the land vs. operating PI as is or reinvesting in it. We all know that Disney never makes mistakes in their estimations.

The "family friendly" angle is just a red herring.

Click to expand...

Sorry. I knew you weren't in disagreement. I was just adding on to what you said and pointing out how absurd it all is.

No worries... I was just clarifying my statement. I have been getting kind of defensive with all of the "family people" around saying that closing PI was a good thing for the kids. Won't anyone think of the children?

TDC Nala, its funny that you brought up the Anaheim model, as that thought crossed my mind, but I always thought their was no way they would kill off a unique DTD for the crummy version in Anaheim, I mean that version is pretty bad, no one would go their for the experience of Anaheims DTD, there is no draw that cant be had off property and at a fraction of the price. Add to that the fact that Disneyland doesnt have the on site captive guests like WDW, and it makes no sense to duplicate it?

TDC Nala, its funny that you brought up the Anaheim model, as that thought crossed my mind, but I always thought their was no way they would kill off a unique DTD for the crummy version in Anaheim, I mean that version is pretty bad, no one would go their for the experience of Anaheims DTD, there is no draw that cant be had off property and at a fraction of the price. Add to that the fact that Disneyland doesnt have the on site captive guests like WDW, and it makes no sense to duplicate it?

Click to expand...

WDW may have the onsite guests - but as Rob pointed out somewhere, the major difference between Anaheim and Lake Buena Vista is that even if you're a WDW onsite guest (which I usually am) and you don't have a car (which I usually don't), you need to make an effort to get to and from DTD, unless maybe you are staying at Saratoga Springs. I for one am not going to be making that effort so much anymore because there no longer that much of a reason for me to go. I like Raglan Road a lot but I am not going to hang out there for hours - eat, have a couple beers and get out of there. Then what? I'm not local but I am there so much that the tourist trappings aren't going to draw me. A put your own face on a tee shirt wouldn't get me over there - I don't want my face where I can see it.

Even if you have a car, you need to make more of an effort than onsite guests at Anaheim have to make. DTD is a gateway to the parks over there. (Don't know if it's relevant - but CityWalk is also a gateway to the parks at Universal.)

I've been to Anaheim several times over the last few years and spent zero time actually hanging around Downtown Disney. Walked through it to get back to the hotel from the parks, stopped in some stores, picked up some beignets. Never even took the time to eat in any of the restaurants beyond carrying out some beignets and bread pudding from that New Orleans place.

At least they had a Sephora so if I forgot my makeup I could have picked some up.

1. No doubt Universal Florida did it right when they built CityWalk in front of the two theme parks which forces people to walk through it to get to and from those parks. Yet even there most of the night clubs are upstairs so there is little mixing between those partying and those just passing through.

2. Thus, Downtown Disney in Florida has to be a destination because people have to make an effort to go there. And a destination it was. And for some, it still will be. Fine. But for locals here in Orlando, there is now little reason to go. For adults traveling without kids and conventioneers, no reason at all.

3. I don't see how the customer base at DTD in Anaheim being nearly 100% tourists is a good thing and something to replicate. Disneyland has its own problems with teens since it's so very local. Area teens have annual passes and spend every afternoon hanging around IN the theme park. That's not a good thing. Any problem PI had with teens was because they opened the island. If they had kept it ticketed adults only, teens would have NEVER been hanging out there.

4. I too think that PI was one entity and ticket sales (daily or passesl) were not allocated to each club for accounting purposes. After all, most of the time you simply had to show your armband to get into a different club and they did not count attendance except on busier nights when they were tracking capacity. Not so at CityWalk though were most of the clubs seem to be outsourced. I've been out there with my new CityWalk AP (Thanks PI!) and while you get an armband at the first club, you still have to let each club scan your Pass (or daily ticket) the first time you visit that night. So there I believe something is being allocated and it perhaps explains why they never offered an AP in the past.

5. It's hard to believe that there are no firm plans for PI. Were they really that desperate to shut the place down?

I have been off the boards for a few days so I was just catching up. You all bring good points and ideas as usual. One thing I want to add and I'd love to say to many many more people - the ONLY reason DISNEY has actually given is "based on guest feedback" there has been no statement about family friendly. Of course one can speculate what their survey said, but I doubt they stuck around during the night and asked people walking through with kids at midnight if they thought the area should be more kid friendly. We talked to a guy in line at Mannequins who used to be in charge of the research group that Disney uses and he said they always survey during the day when families are all over the place.

Either way it's all speculation. We don't know the financial numbers and we don't know the exact reason this came to fruition(other than the fact that EVERYTHING is about the bottom dollar in some way these days)

What we do know is what doesn't make sense
1. Close the clubs with obviously no immediate plans for construction
2. Close all the clubs at once rather than closing BET and Motion first
3. Why not wait until the new year? Why close before the holidays? It makes no sense.

We know no major announcement will be made until at least January. So the clubs are empty for essentially no reason.

If they don't have a buyer for mannequins, I'd be interested to see how much they want for it